Why are you taking the LLM-hallucinated version of the argument as truth? I even clearly stated how the LLM-version of my claim is a misunderstood version of th

Why are you taking the LLM-hallucinated version of the argument as truth? I even clearly stated how the LLM-version of my claim is a misunderstood version of the argument. Do you remember the point we're arguing? That a human can understand text about a way of writing, and apply that information to the _process_ of writing (not the output). If you admit the LLM can't do this, then you are conceding the point. I don't know why you're claiming that humans can't do this when we very clearly can. An illustrative example: I could describe a new way of rhyming to a human without an example, and they could produce a rhyme without an example. However describing this new rhyming scheme to an LLM without examples would not yield any results. (Rhyming is a bad example to test, however, because the LLM corpi have plenty of examples).